Multiple Ticket's Residential Estate Link Parking

Half_way

Theres a high probability that the person issuing the tickets is a fellow resident, employed as part opf a PPC's self ticketing operation, and collecting a bounty for each ticket issued.

If you have a comunal area you could put a notice up warning residents of whats happening and that the person issuing the tickets could be liable for any costs that residents have incurred as a result.

Umkomaas

If you have a comunal area you could put a notice up warning residents of whats happening and that the person issuing the tickets could be liable for any costs that residents have incurred as a result.

Yep, try to 'out' your very own Norris Cole. Then, once discovered, give him a taste of his own medicine by writing to him to warn that you will be issuing proceedings against him at the County Court.

Put the shiites up him; I bet his Kodak Brownie stops working!

bod1467

Rimmerworld wrote: »

Just checked and sure enough the envelope has been removed. Not sure what I can do now.

How about printing it out again, carefully opening one of the ticket envelopes and putting it in there? (Or even do the same for all of them that are there so far).

beamerguy

The Link website says this ...
http://www.linkparking.co.uk/index.php

"Link Parking is like no other parking company, if it is making money from your car park you want, optimising its use or just keeping unauthorised vehicles out then look no further you have found the Link to achieving your goal."

The question to your management must be
"DO YOU PROFIT FROM THIS CAR PARK"

They will of course say no but push the matter.

If you don't believe them, you are entitled under freedom of information to request full information from Link.
You need to tell your management company of your intentions

From looking at the Link website it really is very basic but I note they practice the scare tactics of the Beavis case which is highly misleading for the consumer.

They also highlight the IPC saying ...

"The IPC operates a Code of Practice that encourages good practice and facilitates the fair release of data where there is a right to recover parking charges. ."

Misleading for the consumer as the IPC/IAS do not operate good practice. Nor do their members such as LINK

An addition to their web site they should include this by the Prankster

Link Parking...you've been Gladstoned![
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/link-parkingyouve-been-gladstoned.html

To normal honest people that would be the FAIR way.

This not in the remit of LINK

beamerguy

As Umkomaas suggests ...

If you have enough people, why not get a home CCTV which can be mounted inside by a window focused on the vehicle, about £150 from Tesco's.

Plugs into a laptop so you can watch live or record all night for playback later.

Plant a fake envelope on the car and within 24-48 hrs you will capture the culprit

bod1467

beamerguy wrote: »

If you don't believe them, you are entitled under freedom of information to request full information from Link.

Sorry but I think that's fundamentally incorrect ... FoI only applies for public bodies; private companies are not subject to FoI rules. Are you confusing this with a Subject Access Request?

beamerguy

bod1467 wrote: »

Sorry but I think that's fundamentally incorrect ... FoI only applies for public bodies; private companies are not subject to FoI rules. Are you confusing this with a Subject Access Request?

I thought that SAR was for personal information and not for this one.

Would they respond to a SAR requesting information about the contract for another company

Coupon-mad

The_Deep wrote: »

In fact, it is believed that some of us are being targeted by PPC stooges who try to get us banned by taking spurious offence at some of the things we write.

Well...someone did. Let's not go there, it's not important right now!

But there is no evidence that it's a PPC and after all these years, personally I would doubt it because they've never bothered me before (except for the odd stupid ranty stuff) in 8 years on this board.

beamerguy wrote: »

I thought that SAR was for personal information and not for this one.

Would they respond to a SAR requesting information about the contract for another company

No, you can only ask for data held on you or associated information relating to you (e.g. anything held about your car).

beamerguy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, you can only ask for data held on you or associated information relating to you (e.g. anything held about your car).

Thought that was the case, is it possible therefore to get the information about, in this case, share of money

Coupon-mad

No, they don't have to show their contract except in court, to counter any such defence point. The good news as we know, is that Link/Gladstones cases often fail as they are bungled and the signs are often wanting.

In a residents' car park, it could be argued that the actual 'contract' was formed when the permits were supplied and the contractual wording that accompanied the permits (sometimes signed for, making the contract complete) often does not stipulate paying £100 for parking on a roadway. It might have warned ''you will get a 'parking charge' if this permit is not displayed'' but I doubt the permit bumf defined the sum specifically at £100. Nor is it likely that the permit bumf mentioned extra add-ons like £50 x2 inexplicably added twice by Gladstones & their PPCs to enable double recovery if a Judge doesn't chuck it out. Nor is it likely that the permit bumf informed the recipient that any extra terms on any third party signage form part of the contract/must be read and are incorporated into the agreement.

So, IMHO, a contract was formed between whoever exchanged and accepted the permit and thereafter, no new terms (on signs or whatever) can be added as it is too late to incorporate new terms. Too late for a driver to be bound by signs that he has not had drawn to his attention; he is entitled to rely on the permit scheme agreement he (or his landlord, if he is a tenant) accepted.

Link signs assist this argument because they are normally sporadically placed with the only legible large words being merely 'authorised/permit holders only' which no resident would feel means they are at risk of contravening. Any £100 is likely to be pretty much buried in small print, I expect. Does the roadway have yellow lines to alert a driver to restrictions?